Access Committee

Charge

Committee Members

Jan Baltzer, DIST          Renee Barstack, GCC
Andy Bernal, CGCC          Queta Chavez, DIST
Frank Gonzalez, MCC        Patricia Honzay, DIST
Joe LeCluyse, PVCC         Catherine Osborn, DIST
Yolanda Penley, CGCC       Shirley Petras, GCC
Mollie Pusateri, GCC       Mike Rooney, DIST
Linda B. Rosenthal, DIST   Dorothy Sisneros, PCC

Co-Chairs 
Patricia Cardenas Adame - RSCC       Tim Sylvester - GCC

Introduction and Objectives/Tasks for the Year

Introduction

• Governing Board Action
• Institutional Research
• Information Literacy/Training
• User Access to Information
• User Access to Technology
• Communication Within the District

The committee discussed the need for this yearŐs committee to be a "proactive" committee. The committee felt that they should not just make a series of recommendations but first explore, examine and evaluate the progress made on the previous years' Access Committees' recommendations so that some degree of tracking or accountability would be given to this year's recommendations. This direction was discussed with Vice Chancellor de los Santos and the group was strongly encouraged to pursue it.

Objective

Tasks for the Year

Next, the committee developed the general research questions to be asked of all responsible parties. Then the teams developed specific research questions relating to their areas of interest. The purpose of these questions was to find out the status of each recommendation. A copy of these questions is included at the end of this report. These questions were forwarded to the responsible parties (Information Technology Services, Individual Colleges, Training Services, Deans of Instruction and Deans of Occupational Education). Individual meetings, discussions and a group meeting were conducted to obtain the answers.

The next section of this report contains the results of this exploration and examination. Also, it contains the recommendations of this yearŐs Access Committee.

Progress and Recommendations

GOVERNING BOARD ACTION

1. Develop an over-arching, broad policy statement by the Governing Board regarding the infusion of technology into Maricopa's programs and services (reference 1989-90 Access Report).

   PROGRESS: None Reported

   RECOMMENDATION: Recommended Policy Statement:

   "MCCD values the use of technology for administrative and educational purposes. All Governing Board approved employees are expected to access the available technology to perform their duties. It is the responsibility of the supervisor(s) to ensure that adequate training is provided. It is the responsibility of the employee to use both the technology and the information obtained. MCCD has the responsibility to provide its students access to technology within its available resources. MCCD students have the responsibility to access information available for them to meet their educational goals."

   Responsible party: Ocotillo Access Committee and Vice Chancellor of Educational and Student Development.

2. Develop a Board policy that addresses the issue of database ownership and access.

   PROGRESS: None Reported

   RECOMMENDATION: Continue to address the issue of database ownership and access, and support current efforts. Responsible party: Ocotillo Access Committee 1993-1994.

3. Address three other issues that may require Governing Board policy statements:
   • legal rights
   • the privacy act
   • security

   PROGRESS: None Reported

   RECOMMENDATION: The 1993-1994 Ocotillo Access Committee should work with other individual Ocotillo Committees to insure that these issues move forward. Responsible party: Ocotillo Committees 1993-1994.

INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH

1. Organize the institution's data into a research institutional database along with a variety of user interface tools that allow faculty and staff to access the information in an easy and consistent manner. Responsible party: Information Technology Services

   PROGRESS: A server has been installed at District which houses the Statewide Tracking System, the Program Cost Analysis System, and Almanac. A variety of reporting tools such as FOCUS, SPSS and SAS will be made available on the server by June 1, 1993.

   RECOMMENDATION: Continue current efforts. Emphasis should be placed on easy access to information. Responsible party: Information Technology Services, District Research Department and Individual Colleges.

INFORMATION LITERACY/TRAINING

1. Develop a program of "information literacy" to take up where the previous "computer literacy" effort left off. This should be developed and implemented for students, faculty and staff. Responsible party: Training Services.

   PROGRESS: Failure to pass the bond had a negative impact on the rate of expansion of information literacy. However, training efforts continue for faculty and staff, and information regarding training is made available via published newsletters and electronic mail. Students continue to be served through credit and non-credit courses at the individual colleges.

   RECOMMENDATION: The definition of "information literacy" as noted in the 1989 report entitled, American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, should be used when addressing "information literacy." "...to be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information." The issue regarding "information literacy" for students should be addressed by review and possibly revision of the one credit computer usage graduation requirement. Information literacy for faculty and staff should be addressed with appropriate and self-paced training. Responsible party: Vice Chancellor of Educational and Student Development and Training Services.

2. Provide ongoing training for the institutional research database and ongoing training in data interpretation. Responsible party: Training Services.

   PROGRESS: Training in the interpretation of data and the area of institutional research is not an area that is addressed by Training Services. The Almanac project was to address these areas.

   RECOMMENDATION: Training Services may need to expand its focus and revise its mission. Training for higher levels of competency (retrieval, analysis and interpretation) should be made available for faculty and staff. Responsible party: Training Services.

3. Use a multifaceted approach to training which recognizes individual as well as group needs and preferences. We recommend the purchase or development of self-paced tutorial training methods. These need to be updated on an ongoing basis. Responsible party: Training Services.

   PROGRESS: The purchasing of tutorials and materials has been addressed. There is a current list of videos and tutorials available via the Training Services Newsletter. Training Services also has available open Friday labs for faculty and staff.

   RECOMMENDATION: Duplication of efforts at the campus level (credit, non-credit, faculty and staff development) and at District must be addressed. Courses taught at the campus level are also available via Training Services. Focus of the Training Services Department may need to shift to other areas. Responsible party: Training Services and Information Technology Services Technical Training Team.

4. Include Training Services in the rapid prototype development method. Responsible party: Training Services and Information Technology Services.

   PROGRESS: Documentation of prototypes is more of an issue than training. Information Technology Services is responsible for the documentation of software enhancements and updates. Once documentation is available, training can be addressed

   RECOMMENDATION: Information Technology Services should include Training Services in the development of rapid prototypes so that training issues can be addressed in the development stage. Responsible party: Training Services and Information Technology Services.

5. Expand the use of electronic communication tools such as Electronic Forum, INFORM, Bitnet, Internet, and others to give students, faculty, and staff access to other individuals throughout Maricopa County and the world. Responsible party: Training Services and Information Technology Services.

   PROGRESS: Electronic Forum is now being used by more students and faculty. Bitnet and Internet are also widely used and INFORM is also being expanded. Access is available, yet expansion on the network has been an issue. It is important to note that expansion of the use of these tools requires money at the campus level. Training Services provides training to faculty and staff inthe areas of Bitnet and Internet.

   RECOMMENDATION: Keep alert to new and different product availability. Training in areas of Electronic Forum, and INFORM should be addressed. Responsible party: Training Services, Information Technology Services, Individual Colleges and Faculty and Staff Development.

USER ACCESS TO INFORMATION

1. Establish a centralized clearinghouse where information about existing technologies, applications and user groups can be accessed . Responsible party: Information Systems Support Task Force.

   PROGRESS: None. Information Systems Support Task Force no longer exists.

   RECOMMENDATION: Development and implementation of clearinghouse is necessary. Responsible party: Library Technical Services and Maricopa Center. for Learning and Instruction.

2. Expand the number and type of on-line databases available to students, faculty, and staff. Responsible party: Information Technology Services

   PROGRESS: MCCD can now tie into ASU and Business forums through the Phoenix Metro Image Project. The project was made available through a $422,225 grant. The project provides electronic access and delivery to a serial indexing service and full-text delivery of article images to participating libraries. In addition, the project helps improve library services for patrons of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area.

   RECOMMENDATION: Continue current efforts and research grant availability. Responsible party: Information Technology Services and District Development Office.

USER ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY

1. Create a review system at the college level that ensures a balance between courses requiring access to technology and the availability of technology to students, i.e., lab availabilities vs lab demand. Responsible party: Deans of Instruction and Deans of Occupational Education.

   PROGRESS: Ongoing effort at the college level.

   RECOMMENDATION: Consider the impact of providing access to the physical resources of the college. Review the impact of course competencies to availability of technology. Responsible party: Occupational Deans, Deans of Instruction and Instructional Councils.

2. Develop or purchase new administrative computing systems (i.e., SIS, FRS, HRS) that are user-centered and provide easier access to information for students, faculty, and staff. Responsible party: Information Technology Services and Individual colleges.

   PROGRESS: Development of new administrative systems may not be available within the next 12-24 months without the budget dollars to support a major project. Information Technology Services will have a future plan available by Spring 1993. Major changes will be seen in the organizational systems/functions of Information Technology Services.

   RECOMMENDATION: We encourage moving current systems to newer database technologies. The Spring 1993 plan should be distributed to all current user groups for review and comment. Responsible party: Information Technology Services.

3. Expand and/or upgrade current telephone and voice mail systems to:
   • Provide wider use of integrated voice response technology to give students, faculty, staff, and the community touchtone access to information.

   • Provide students, faculty, staff, and the community with a mechanism for interacting with administrative and instructional databases (i.e., expanded touchtone registration, flex benefits selection, requests for information, etc.). Responsible party: Information Technology Services and Individual Colleges.

   PROGRESS: Former touchtone telephone system has been replaced by new technology. Several research teams are working on developing the phases and timelines for upgrading integrated voice response. Expansion of voice response is scheduled to include credit card payment, instructor interaction, and other student services. At this time there are no plans to access other database systems outside Student Information System using voice response technology.

   RECOMMENDATION: Continue current efforts and attempt to provide additional services as identified by user groups. Responsible party: Information Technology Services and Individual Colleges.

4. Expand and enhance the Video Conference Network (VCN) and VCN locations at the colleges to give students access to courses and resources from one college location to another that might otherwise not be accessible. Responsible party: Information Technology Services and Individual Colleges.

   PROGRESS: As of Spring 1993 six VCN classes are being offered. Every college except Gateway Community College and Estrella Mountain Community College are using VCN. Employee groups have also used VCN for meetings. There are other ways that VCN can be used such as for training. Currently a VCN Coordinating Committee is concentrating on the use of VCN in the instructional areas.

   RECOMMENDATION: Encourage the use of VCN at all colleges, and add course availability as technology allows. Provide training and protocol for the use of VCN. Investigate use of VCN for training and other purposes. Investigate legal concerns regarding transmittal of videos via VCN. Responsible party: Information Technology Services, District Legal Services and VCN coordinated at various colleges.

5. Continue to expand the local area networks at the colleges and the MCCD wide area network for maximum connectivity of individuals to individuals and individuals to sources of information. Responsible party: Information Technology Services and Individual Colleges.

   PROGRESS: MCCD has one of the best networks in the country yet, major rework is needed. Presently there is a team reviewing recommendations that were made in a management report. However, changes in enhancements rely heavily on budget dollars.

   RECOMMENDATION: Continue current efforts and work toward integrating various platforms and networks into a seamless web of information access. Responsible party: Information Technology Services and Individual Colleges.

6. Additional use of technology is needed for the delivery and evaluation of programs and services to diverse populations requiring greater support for academic success (reference 1989-90 Access report). Evaluate current systems as to how they meet needs. Responsible party: Advising Council

   PROGRESS: The Academic Advising Council, the MAPS Chairs Committee, and the Assessment Coordinators have identified their needs and have met with the Vice Chancellor of Information Technologies to communicate those needs.

   RECOMMENDATION: Members of the three groups (mentioned in the progress statement) should identify their two to three top priority needs and communicate them to Information Technology Services. Information Technology Services, in turn, should respond by informing the groups whether or not the identified needs are of a high priority in the work of Information Technology Services. Timetables for completion should then be developed and communicated. Responsible party: The Academic Advisory Council, the MAPS Chairs Committee, the Assessment Coordinators, and Information Technology Services.

7. There is a need to provide easier access to information for all employees across colleges to assist them in achieving excellence in their job performance (reference 1989-90 Access report). Responsible party: Information Technology Services.

   PROGRESS: New information access includes: Legal Aid Schedule Cost Modeling

   RECOMMENDATION: Develop and implement procedures so that employees with legitimate needs have access to information. This may also have a legal consideration. Investigate the acquisition of new technologies to simplify these tasks. Emphasis should be on providing service to students. Responsible party: Information Technology Services Technical Training Team.

COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE DISTRICT

1. Compile a district-wide inventory of programs or reports that have been developed at individual campuses. Responsible party: Information Systems Support Task Force.

   PROGRESS: Information Systems Support Task Force no longer exists. All FOCUS reports are standardized and available for use via Vax.

   RECOMMENDATION: Develop a list and provide information on how to access it. Responsible party: Library Technical Services, Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction, and Information Technology Services.

2. Develop more specific standards for the selection, acquisition, and utilization of hardware and software (reference 1989-90 Access report). Responsible party: Information Technology Services.

   PROGRESS: Approved list of hardware is made available to colleges for distribution to individuals.

   RECOMMENDATION: Develop a method for acquiring District-wide licenses for popular software for administrative and instructional use. Responsible party: Purchasing Department, Legal Services, and Individual Colleges.

SUMMARY

However, a much more important concern for this year's committee is not just that there have been recommendations and that there is a process to evaluate the implementation of these recommendations, but that the results of the work of this yearŐs committee - its recommendations and the evaluations - will be used for more than just the input to next year's Access committee. If this report is indeed only a formality, then the members of the committee agree that the exercise they have performed this year is redundant and should be discontinued.

There are too many more important tasks, and our resources are too scarce to merely generate a report that will only be read by next year's committee so that it can generate its report. The 1992-93 Access committee believes that we have reached the point where a decision must be made about this committee's report. As was stated in our objective:

Our report must be a living document. The members of the Access Committee sincerely hope that this report will not be read and put on a shelf, but that it will be a "blueprint and guide" for action. The degree to which this happens will be the true measure of the ultimate success and worth of the time and energy put in by the members of this committee.

OCOTILLO ACCESS SUB-COMMITTEE

1. How do the priorities identified by the Ocotillo sub-committee on Access match with your department/area priorities?
2. What is your view of the recommendations identified by the Ocotillo sub- committee on Access?
3. How do your strategic goals/plans match or relate to the recommendations identified by the Ocotillo sub-committee on Access?
4. What actions or tasks is your department/area doing which specifically relate to the recommendations identified by the Ocotillo sub-committee on Access?
5. How are the recommendations identified by the Ocotillo sub-committee on Access being advanced within your area/department?
6. What timeframe do you have for the accomplishment of these recommendations?
7. If these recommendations are not priorities for your area, can you please tell us, "why not".
8. What can we, the members of the Ocotillo sub-committee on Access do to help you address our recommendations? How can we create a partnership with you to address this concern?

Several individuals had specific questions:

To Information Technology Services, I would ask:

1. Is there an identified person to whom faculty could go with questions on the integration of technology into their courses if there is no one on their campus to assist?
2. Given budget constraints at this time, what can we expect in terms of obtaining more technology resources and keeping up with current advances?
3. Is there a master plan for networking for the whole District?
   • If not, why not?
   • If so:
     1. What hardware and software platforms are in the plan?
     2. Are the colleges fully aware of what this plan is, and are their networking plans REQUIRED to be part of this overall strategy?
     3. What is the timeframe for implementing the plan?
     4. What are the estimated costs of implementing the plan?
     5. Do the various units have the wherewithal to implement their share of the plan? What are the consequences if they donŐt?
     6. How high on Information Technology Services's priority list is the implementation of this plan?

Index

Ocotillo Report '93

back

next